Next Article in Journal
Smart Learning in the 21st Century: Advancing Constructionism Across Three Digital Epochs
Next Article in Special Issue
Embracing Liberating Worldviews in Gifted Education
Previous Article in Journal
English and French Teachers’ Assessment Practices in the Ukrainian Context: Understanding Language Assessment Literacy Needs Across Two Languages
Previous Article in Special Issue
Developing Talented Children’s Computational Thinking Through Multimodal Literacies in Pop-Up Storybooks: A Case Study in Hong Kong
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci15010044
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Self-Perceptions of Twice-Exceptional Children: A Systematic Review

by
Louise Küry
* and
Christian Fischer
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Münster, 48143 Münster, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010044
Submission received: 27 November 2024 / Revised: 19 December 2024 / Accepted: 2 January 2025 / Published: 4 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This systematic review examines the self-perceptions of twice-exceptional children. This review examines the self-concept, self-esteem and self-efficacy of these children, as well as the factors that influence their self-perceptions. The PRISMA guidelines were employed in the conduct of this systematic review. To be included in this study, articles had to be empirical, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals, and be aligned with the research questions. A total of 18 papers were included for assessment of quality, the majority of which employed a case study design. The findings suggest that twice-exceptional children tend to perceive themselves in a negative manner. Furthermore, twice-exceptional children exhibited diminished global self-concept, accompanied by low self-esteem and self-efficacy. Positive factors influencing self-perception are adequate support from teachers and parents, early identification and strength-based support. A lack of understanding on the part of teachers and parents, insufficient attention to giftedness in and outside of school, and a sense of being different were identified as negative influencing factors. Further research is required to verify the results using a quantitative longitudinal study. The findings of this review highlight the necessity for adequate support and encouragement for twice-exceptional children, suggesting potential ways for their implementation.

1. Introduction

The coexistence of both strengths and challenges in students is garnering increasing interest from both research and practice perspectives. Such twice-exceptional (2e) students are defined as “(…) students who demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or more domains such as maths, science, technology, the social arts, the visual, spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity AND who manifest one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria.” (Reis et al., 2014, p. 222). Recent research has focused on the concept of ‘neurodiversity’, which also includes twice-exceptional children. In the papers presented here, however, the construct of neurodiversity is not in the foreground. It is estimated that up to one in five gifted children meet the criteria for twice exceptionality (Barber & Mueller, 2011). As children with multiple exceptionalities are frequently not identified, or only identified partially, for example, due to the masking of giftedness by a disability or vice versa, precise statements about prevalence are difficult to make (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). In addition, twice-exceptional children are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs (Missett et al., 2016). Furthermore, educators tend to prioritize the shortcomings of children identified as twice exceptional over their strengths. Consequently, they tend to emphasize these shortcomings more than their strengths (Missett et al., 2016). Nevertheless, research indicates that it is crucial for children with multiple exceptionalities to have both their giftedness and disability acknowledged and addressed within and beyond the educational setting (Lewis, 2021).
This prompts the question of how this absence of support, precipitated by a lack of identification and a deficit orientation, affects the well-being of twice-exceptional children. Self-perceptions constitute a significant aspect of socio-emotional development and well-being (Mann et al., 2004). Such constructs include, for example, self-concept, self-esteem and self-efficacy (see definitions in the following chapter). The objective of this systematic review is to provide a synthesis of the existing research on self-constructs in children with multiple exceptionalities. This encompasses both the characteristics in question as well as potential influencing factors. Current research and the studies included in this review focus on children with giftedness and learning disabilities. Consequently, this paper focuses on these children.

1.1. Definitions

In order to establish a robust theoretical foundation, it is essential to define and differentiate the individual terms in a clear and precise manner.
The concept of multiple exceptionalities was already defined at the beginning of this text. The definitions of giftedness and disability are integrated into this definition. These definitions will be briefly revisited at this point. Giftedness is described as a “potential for high performance or creative productivity in one or more domains.” (Reis et al., 2014, p. 222). Disabilities, on the other hand, are defined according to the criteria of the respective countries. “These disabilities include specific learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behavioral disorders; physical disabilities; autism spectrum disorders (ASD); or other health impairments, such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).” (Reis et al., 2014, p. 222).
Self-perceptions are the attitudes and ideas that people have about themselves (Bong & Clark, 1999). The term “self-perceptions” encompasses three key concepts: self-concept, self-worth and self-efficacy (Swann et al., 2007).
Self-concept can be defined as the cognitive aspect of the self, comprising learned ideas and attitudes towards oneself as an individual, as well as the general way in which we assess ourselves (Huitt, 2009). The self-concept consists of a cognitive part, the knowledge about oneself, and an affective part, the evaluation of one’s own value based on the aforementioned knowledge (Bong & Clark, 1999). Self-concept consists of several dimensions (e.g., physical, academic, social) (Huitt, 2009). One aspect that is often the subject of research is the academic self-concept. This concept describes one’s own knowledge about oneself in academic situations (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003).
Self-efficacy can be defined as the degree of self-confidence in one’s own abilities to achieve something (Bandura, 1982). Due to the conceptual proximity to self-concept, these terms are often used synonymously (Huitt, 2009; Humphrey, 2002). The concepts can be differentiated in that self-efficacy answers the question of whether a person believes they can cope with a task, while self-concept involves the evaluation of one’s own value in an area (Bandura, 1997). Bong and Skaalvik (2003) propose that self-efficacy functions as a precursor to the formation of self-concept. In addition, Bandura (1997) suggests that self-efficacy, like self-concept, has different dimensions. Exemplary dimensions are academic, physical, social and emotional (Bandura, 1997). Academic self-efficacy can thus be defined as the confidence in one’s own academic abilities and in the performance of academic tasks (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003).
The affective or emotional component of the self-concept, otherwise known as self-esteem, represents an individual’s perception of their own value (Huitt, 2009; Rosenberg, 1965). Self-worth and evaluations of the self are often confused (Bong & Clark, 1999). A distinction can be made here by recognizing that self-esteem refers to the general perception of one’s own value across all dimensions, while self-evaluation is the assessment within a domain (Bong & Clark, 1999). Self-esteem thus summarizes the individual self-evaluations of the various dimensions (Bong & Clark, 1999).

1.2. Current State of Knowledge and Its Uncertainties

1.2.1. Self-Perceptions of Students with Learning Disorder (LD)

Current research shows that many children with disabilities have low self-esteem, low self-efficacy and a low self-concept (Barber & Mueller, 2011; Humphrey, 2002; Kavale & Forness, 1966; Shany et al., 2013). A study by Falk and Sansour (2024) investigated which factors influenced the self-concept of children with intellectual disabilities and found diagnosis, age, gender, perception of control, school placement, socioeconomic status and attitudes from the social environment to be influencing factors (Falk & Sansour, 2024). Other possible reasons for ‘poorer’ self-perceptions of pupils with learning difficulties are that children with learning difficulties more frequently express the feeling of feeling different from others (Barber & Mueller, 2011) and are also affected by stigmatization (Bell et al., 2011). Stigmatization is also evident among teachers. The attitudes of teachers towards pupils with learning difficulties are generally negative (Krischler & Pit-ten Cate, 2019). For example, teachers believe that the academic performance of children with ADHD tends to be below average, regardless of test performance (Metzger & Hamilton, 2021).

1.2.2. Self-Perceptions of Gifted Students

The results of a meta-analysis show that gifted pupils have a higher general self-concept as well as a higher academic and behavioral self-concept than non-gifted children (Litster & Roberts, 2011). However, other research shows that gifted pupils have lower self-esteem and a lower self-concept in social, family and physical areas than children without a diagnosis of giftedness (Casino-García et al., 2021). The same research did not find differences in academic self-concept between gifted and non-gifted children (Casino-García et al., 2021). One study showed that participation in gifted programs resulted in gifted students having higher global self-concepts after two years of participation, but lower social self-concepts than students who did not participate (Hoogeveen et al., 2009). One possible reason for more negative self-perceptions could be that gifted children often see themselves as outsiders and feel that they do not belong (Coleman et al., 2015). This can result in a higher risk of being bullied (Coleman et al., 2015; Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019a).

1.3. The Current Review

As already mentioned, self-perceptions play an important role in mental health. This was shown, for example, in the meta-analysis by Sowislo and Orth (2013), who found reciprocal effects between self-esteem and depression, as well as self-esteem and anxiety. Academic self-concept also plays an important role in academic success at school (Mendaglio, 2013; Wu et al., 2021). Due to the stigmatization of both giftedness (Baudson & Preckel, 2013) and disability (Bell et al., 2011), it can be assumed that twice-exceptional children are doubly stigmatized. This makes it particularly relevant to examine the self-perceptions of these children in order to examine the influence of this on their socio-emotional development.
Previous research has only sporadically described how the self-perceptions of twice-exceptional children are characterized. The purpose of this review is to summarize these findings and provide an overview of the self-perceptions of twice-exceptional children. In addition, possible influencing factors that have been identified in previous studies will be listed.
This review analyses the self-perceptions of twice-exceptional children, highlighting the influencing variables on self-perceptions. Six research questions were addressed. The first three questions deal with the level of self-concept, self-esteem and self-efficacy of children with multiple exceptionalities. The following three questions deal with the variables that influence these constructs:
  • What is the self-concept of twice-exceptional children?
  • What is the self-esteem of twice-exceptional children?
  • What is the self-efficacy of twice-exceptional children?
  • Which variables have an influence on self-concept in twice-exceptional children?
  • Which variables have an influence on self-esteem in twice-exceptional children?
  • Which variables have an influence on self-efficacy in twice-exceptional children?

2. Methods

The PRISMA guidelines were used for the methodology in order to comply with the requirements for systematic reviews and to ensure quality (Liberati et al., 2009).

2.1. Data Sources and Search

ERIC, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and all databases in EBSCOhost were used for the literature search. The last search took place on 17 July 2024. The search string used was (twice-exceptional OR “2e” OR “dual exceptionalities” OR “gifted and learning disability”) AND (“self-esteem” OR “self-worth” OR “self-evaluation” OR “self-perception” OR “self-efficacy” OR “self-concept” OR “self-confidence” OR “self-image”) AND (child* OR adolescent* OR youth OR teenager* OR student*). The filter ‘just peer-reviewed articles’ was used for ERIC and EBSCOhost.

2.2. Screening

Only papers published in English and in peer-reviewed journals were included in this review. After the systematic literature search, all papers were imported into Rayyan. There, the duplicates were first removed. Two reviewers screened each title and abstract independently for inclusion and discussed inconsistencies until a consensus was obtained to reduce the risk of bias. The interrater agreement between the two reviewers was 98%. Additional papers were identified through the records of the included papers. Subsequently, one person reviewed the full texts of the remaining 32 papers using the inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 1). The screening process is shown in Figure 1.

2.3. Data Extraction

From the full-text screening of 36 articles, 18 remained. The data of the 18 articles were extracted relating to authors, year, land, sample size, gender, age, operationalization of twice-exceptionality, methodology, measurements, concepts that were investigated and main findings relevant to the research questions. In the quantitative studies, the analyzed data from the study were used as the basis for this review. In the qualitative studies, the interviews were searched for self-perception concepts and associated statements from the interviews were extracted.

2.4. Quality Assessment

A quality assessment of both the qualitative and the quantitative papers was conducted using the checklist of Acosta et al. (2020). The checklist consists of 9 quality dimensions that papers should score high in to be of good quality. The dimensions include a theoretical or conceptual definition, operational definition, research design, sampling design, sample, validity/reliability or trustworthiness/credibility evidence, data analysis, implications for practitioners and implications for policy. Table 2 presents the outcome of the quality assessment for each paper.

3. Results

The results are summarized below. Firstly, the results of the quality assessment are presented, divided into qualitative and quantitative papers. The findings from the papers are then described.

3.1. Quality Assessment

As already described, a questionnaire was used to review the quality of all papers (Acosta et al., 2020). The quality characteristics of all papers are described below. All studies were included in this study, irrespective of their quality rating. However, individual points are referenced in the discussion.

3.1.1. Qualitative Papers

Firstly, the qualitative studies are categorized according to their quality. The majority of the qualitative papers used semi-structured interviews; also, some of the papers used mixed methods, combining questionnaires and interviews on a few participants. Out of twelve papers, three did not provide a theoretical or conceptual definition (Fugate & Gentry, 2016; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009; Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992). Four papers did not list their research design or research questions (Baum, 1988; Cooper et al., 2004; Fugate & Gentry, 2016; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009). Two papers did not describe a sampling method (Baum, 1988; Cooper et al., 2004) and three papers did not characterize the sample well (Baum, 1988; Hua, 2002; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009). Seven papers did not provide an interview schedule (Baum, 1988; Cooper et al., 2004; Hua, 2002; Townend & Brown, 2016; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009; Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992; Wang & Neihart, 2015a). Six papers did not report quality criteria (trustworthiness, credibility, dependability) (Baum, 1988; Cooper et al., 2004; Hua, 2002; Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019b; Townend & Brown, 2016; Townend & Pendergast, 2015). And no policy implications flowed from the results of 11 papers (Baum, 1988; Cooper et al., 2004; Fugate & Gentry, 2016; Hua, 2002; Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019b; Townend & Brown, 2016; Townend & Pendergast, 2015; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009; Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992; Wang & Neihart, 2015a, 2015b).

3.1.2. Quantitative Papers

In the following subsection, the quantitative papers are categorized according to their quality. Five papers used the Piers–Harris Children’s self-concept scale (Baum & Owen, 1988; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012, 2015; Olenchak, 1995; Waldron et al., 1987), which has faced criticism due to the fact that there are no normative values (Bear et al., 2002). To measure self-esteem, one paper used BASC-2 (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012), and one paper (Fugate & Gentry, 2016) used the experience sampling form (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987), while the others did not report which scales they used. One quantitative paper analyzed the self-efficacy of twice-exceptional children (Baum & Owen, 1988). Five papers did not provide a theoretical or conceptual definition (Barber & Mueller, 2011; Baum & Owen, 1988; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012; Olenchak, 1995; Waldron et al., 1987). One paper did not provide any research questions (Baum & Owen, 1988). Three papers did not characterize the sample well or sufficiently (Al-Hroub, 2008; Baum & Owen, 1988; Olenchak, 1995). One paper reported no quality criteria (Al-Hroub, 2008). Four papers did not list any implications for practice (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012, 2015; Olenchak, 1995; Waldron et al., 1987) and six papers did not list any policy implications (Al-Hroub, 2008; Barber & Mueller, 2011; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012, 2015; Olenchak, 1995; Waldron et al., 1987).
The quality assessment of the studies examined shows methodological weaknesses in both the qualitative and quantitative studies. Many qualitative studies had unclear theoretical foundations, missing research questions and an insufficient description of the samples. In addition, quality criteria and political implications were often not mentioned. Similar shortcomings were found in the quantitative studies, particularly with regard to theoretical definitions, missing research questions and a lack of practical and policy implications. Overall, many studies show gaps in their methodological quality and applicability.

3.2. Findings from Papers

The results of this review are discussed in terms of the six research questions. An overview of the results can be found in Table 3 and Table 4.

3.2.1. Self-Concept of Twice-Exceptional Children

The examination of self-concept among twice-exceptional children reveals consistently lower scores compared to their peers. Barber and Mueller (2011) found that self-concept is significantly lower in the twice-exceptional group compared to the control group, with the control group exhibiting the highest self-concept scores. Foley-Nicpon et al. (2012) further highlighted that children with ADHD within the twice-exceptional category exhibited significantly lower self-concepts in areas of behavioral adjustment, happiness, and satisfaction. Townend and Brown (2016) reported very low self-concept scores overall, particularly noting that academic self-concept fell within the low average range. Supporting these findings, Townend and Pendergast (2015) revealed that participants exhibited low self-concept across most subscales, including the intellectual self-concept subscale, as indicated by PH-2 data. Waldron et al. (1987) documented lower self-concept across all six factors they assessed, although the differences were not significant within the learning disabled/gifted (LD/G) group. They also observed that LD/G students identified by their teachers as having behavior problems typically had lower self-concepts than their peers without such behavior issues.
In contrast, Wang and Neihart (2015a) reported that overall academic self-concepts among 2e students were high. Foley-Nicpon et al. (2015) found that overall self-concept profiles for 2e children remained within the average range.

3.2.2. Self-Esteem of Twice-Exceptional Children

The results generally show a lower self-esteem in twice-exceptional children. Foley-Nicpon et al. (2012) identified a significant difference in self-esteem between children with ADHD and those without any diagnosis, with the ADHD group displaying significantly lower self-esteem. Townend and Brown (2016) described the presence of imposter syndrome in 2e children, characterized by very low self-esteem and a tendency to attribute their successes to external factors rather than their own efforts. Additionally, VanTassel-Baska et al. (2009) noted prevalent feelings of low confidence and self-esteem, coupled with perfectionism, among this group.
Conversely, Vespi and Yewchuk (1992) found generally positive feelings of self-image and self-confidence among 2e children, as confirmed by their parents and teachers. These children acknowledged their intelligence and diverse abilities, yet also experienced self-doubt when engaging in tasks that highlighted their weaknesses.

3.2.3. Self-Efficacy of Twice-Exceptional Children

The assessment of self-efficacy among twice-exceptional (2e) children reveals mixed results, particularly within the academic domain. Baum and Owen (1988) found that academic self-efficacy in the group with the twice-exceptional children was significantly lower compared to the high-ability group and slightly lower than in the learning-disabled (LD) group. In contrast, Wang and Neihart (2015a) reported positive academic self-efficacy among twice-exceptional children, suggesting that despite some challenges, these children can exhibit confidence in their academic abilities.

3.2.4. Variables with an Influence on Self-Concept in Twice-Exceptional Children

Positive influences: Al-Hroub (2008) demonstrated that teaching programs integrating multi-sensory and enrichment approaches significantly enhance self-concept among 2e students. Olenchak (1995) further supported this by showing that a year-long enrichment program based on Renzulli’s principles of “enrichment learning and teaching,” which promotes personal creative productivity and nurtures individual strengths, also leads to positive self-concept outcomes.
Townend and Brown (2016) found that recognizing and supporting the unique learning needs of 2e children, alongside participation in a gifted program and engaging in hobbies such as playing football, positively impacts their self-concept. Additionally, Townend and Pendergast (2015) emphasized the critical role of teachers, noting that positive feedback, supportive relationships, and perceived support from teachers are the most influential factors in enhancing self-concept.
Furthermore, being identified as gifted and attending gifted classes were reported as supportive and positive experiences by 2e children, contributing to a better self-concept (Townend & Pendergast, 2015).
Negative influences: Al-Hroub (2008) found that traditional teaching programs relying heavily on presentation methods negatively impact the self-concept of 2e students. Barber and Mueller (2011) noted that when controlling for perceptions of maternal relationships, the significant group differences in self-concept among 2e children disappear, indicating the crucial role of maternal relationships.
Townend and Brown (2016) identified that interactions with teachers, closely followed by interactions with peers, serve as negative influences on self-concept. They also highlighted the negative impact of self-talk. Similarly, Townend and Pendergast (2015) emphasized the adverse effects of negative self-talk, low attitudes towards teachers in primary school, and negative school experiences with teachers. They also pointed out that focusing solely on areas requiring support, rather than strengths, negatively affects self-concept.
Additionally, social difficulties, including feelings of isolation and poor interpersonal relations, were found to have a negative influence on the self-concept of 2e children (Townend & Pendergast, 2015).

3.2.5. Variables with an Influence on Self-Esteem in Twice-Exceptional Children

Positive influence: Baum (1988) found that programs based on the enrichment triad model (Renzulli, 1977) significantly improved the self-esteem of all children who completed the program. Similarly, Cooper et al. (2004) emphasized the importance of nurturing the creative thinking side of 2e children by praising their talents rather than focusing on their weaknesses, alongside participation in gifted programs. VanTassel-Baska et al. (2009) reported that participation in gifted programs and the process of being identified as gifted positively influenced the self-esteem of 2e children.
Fugate and Gentry (2016) identified several critical factors contributing to improved self-esteem, including teachers who understand and support the unique needs of 2e children, accommodations provided by teachers, and support from families. They also highlighted the importance of adopting a strength-based perspective in fostering positive self-esteem.
Negative influence: Fugate and Gentry (2016) found that school environments are often associated with feelings of confusion, tension, and shame among 2e students. Unreasonably high expectations and teachers losing patience with these students further undermine their self-esteem. Additionally, teachers frequently fail to fully understand the daily challenges faced by 2e children, exacerbating feelings of inadequacy.
Ronksley-Pavia et al. (2019b) identified difficulties in reconciling the stereotyped image of a gifted person with their self-image, leading to feelings of being different and perceiving themselves as not normal. Peer rejection and teachers yelling further contribute to the negative self-esteem of these children.
VanTassel-Baska et al. (2009) reported that children who are uneven in their abilities are often not recognized as gifted by their parents, which negatively impacts their self-esteem. Vespi and Yewchuk (1992) noted that frustration arises in these children because they see themselves as capable individuals, yet underachievement leads to constant reminders of their brightness, making it difficult to cope. Additionally, these children tend to react to stress by beginning to doubt their abilities.

3.2.6. Variables with an Influence on Self-Efficacy in Twice-Exceptional Children

Positive influence: Hua (2002) identified the encouragement and nurturance from parents, mentorship from teachers (as per Bandura’s social learning theory), and emotional support from both family and teachers as significant contributors to enhanced self-efficacy. Additionally, early identification of potential talent development opportunities plays a crucial role in fostering self-efficacy.
Wang and Neihart (2015a) reported that academic self-efficacy is bolstered when children achieve in certain subjects, enabling them to maintain confidence even when facing challenges in other areas. The focus on strengths rather than weaknesses is essential. External supports, such as facilitation and encouragement from teachers, parents, and friends, were found to mediate academic self-efficacy, significantly impacting students’ confidence and achievement.
Interest in subjects was also found to interact positively with high academic self-concept, further enhancing self-efficacy (Wang & Neihart, 2015b). The expectations of others, including teachers and parents, influenced the children’s perceptions of their abilities, while collaborative work with peers helped them see beyond their own limitations and further develop their self-efficacy (Wang & Neihart, 2015b).
Negative influence: Cooper et al. (2004) noted that feelings of being different from other kids adversely affected self-efficacy. Hua (2002) reported that many teachers failed to recognize the special talents and needs of 2e children, with schools primarily accommodating disabilities rather than giftedness. This lack of recognition and focus on deficits, rather than strengths, contributed to negative perceptions from teachers. Ronksley-Pavia et al. (2019b) identified that insufficient acknowledgment or praise for achievements and negative interactions, such as teachers yelling, further undermined self-efficacy.

4. Discussion

First, the results of this literature review are summarized and interpreted below. Then, the limitations of the results and the review process are discussed. Finally, implications for practice, policy and future research are derived.

4.1. Summary and Interpretation of the Results

The objective of this literature review was to present the current state of research on the self-perceptions of twice-exceptional children, with a particular focus on the three constructs of self-concept, self-esteem and self-efficacy. While the majority of studies on self-concept indicate more negative self-perceptions, Wang and Neihart (2015a) report high academic self-concept in twice-exceptional children. However, the study’s small sample size (n = 6) limits the extent to which its findings can be generalized. Furthermore, the study solely focused on academic self-concept, without examining other dimensions of self-concept. This may suggest that academic self-concept is elevated as a consequence of giftedness, whereas general self-concept is diminished. This is also reflected in a systematic literature review that examined the academic self-concept of gifted children (Peperkorn & Wegner, 2020). This demonstrated that gifted children exhibit a higher academic self-concept than children who have not been diagnosed as gifted (Peperkorn & Wegner, 2020). Another possible explanation is that the study by Wang and Neihart (2015a) only included children who were already participating in gifted programs, and that participation in such programs is associated with an enhanced academic self-concept (Hoogeveen et al., 2009).
Additionally, varying outcomes were observed with respect to self-esteem. The majority of studies have indicated that twice-exceptional children tend to exhibit low self-esteem. However, a study by Vespi and Yewchuk (1992) has demonstrated that there are also instances where twice-exceptional children display positive self-esteem. However, the sample size was again limited (n = 3). In her dissertation, Best (2017) investigated the self-esteem of twice-exceptional children and found that gifted children exhibited the highest self-esteem, while twice-exceptional children demonstrated a lower self-esteem, and children with learning difficulties or disabilities exhibited the lowest self-esteem. These results support and reflect the findings of this literature review.
With regard to self-efficacy, all studies included demonstrated a lower level of self-efficacy in twice-exceptional children. One potential explanation for the observed lower self-efficacy is the dual nature of the talents and challenges experienced by twice-exceptional children. These children often encounter a discrepancy between their exceptional talents and the learning difficulties or disabilities they may also possess. This discrepancy can lead them to perceive themselves as lacking competence, despite their talents, which, in turn, impairs self-efficacy (Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019b).
A review of the literature on the subject reveals that similar results can be found in studies of children with disabilities. Furthermore, the studies indicate a prevalence of low self-esteem, low self-efficacy, and a low self-concept (Barber & Mueller, 2011; Humphrey, 2002; Kavale & Forness, 1966; Shany et al., 2013). Moreover, a study by Casino-García et al., 2021, revealed a prevalence of low self-esteem and a low general self-concept among gifted children, a finding that aligns with the conclusions of this literature review.
The most frequently cited positive factors influencing self-perception are supportive and understanding teachers, family support, early identification and a focus on the children’s strengths. Negative influencing factors, on the other hand, are negative experiences with teachers due to a lack of understanding and support, problematic parent–child relationships, self-stigmatization and a focus on deficits.
In her dissertation, Glover (2022) also focused on ‘twice-exceptional children’ and investigated the self-efficacy of these children using a qualitative interview study. The children named focus on their talent, supportive teachers, family support and alternative class structures as positive factors influencing their self-efficacy. The negative influencing factors named were the focus on the disability, frustration, self-doubt and unsupportive teachers. These results are largely consistent with the findings of this literature review.
When comparing these findings with the experiences of children with disabilities, parallels can also be observed: These children report negative experiences due to stigma and their social environment (Falk & Sansour, 2024). Another study found negative implicit attitudes of teachers towards students with disabilities, which can be a cause of stigmatization (Krischler & Pit-ten Cate, 2019). In addition, students with learning disabilities experienced more rejection and less acceptance from their teachers, and relationships were perceived as less close than with typically developing students (Al-Yagon & Mikulincer, 2004). Focusing on strengths has also been shown to be beneficial for children with disabilities, as it activates more positive attitudes in teachers (Ginevra et al., 2022).
Furthermore, there are parallels with gifted children as one possible reason for a low self-esteem in gifted children is a lack of a sense of belonging (Coleman et al., 2015) which is consistent with the present results. In addition, gifted children who participated in a two-year gifted program showed a higher self-concept (Hoogeveen et al., 2009), which supports the present results and shows that a focus on giftedness could be a positive influencing factor.

4.2. Limitations

4.2.1. Evidence

The quality of most of the included studies was rated between low and moderate in the quality assessment, which limits the significance of the results. A key problem is the lack of comparability between studies that purport to address the same self-perception concepts. This is mainly due to the fact that many studies lack a precise definition and delimitation of the concepts examined. However, as explained in the introduction, a clear delimitation is certainly possible and should ideally be listed when the relevant concepts are examined (Acosta et al., 2020) In addition, the methodological approaches of the studies are very different, making the results difficult to compare.
Another limitation is the lack of generalizability of the operationalization of twice exceptionality. The studies took different approaches to the operationalization of giftedness and learning difficulties or disabilities. While most papers operationalized giftedness with an IQ of over 120, others used enrollment in gifted programs as a prerequisite (e.g., Wang & Neihart, 2015a). No standardized operationalization was used for learning difficulties or disabilities either. Most papers used children who have a diagnosed learning difficulty or disability, while others used the parents’ statement as a prerequisite (e.g., Barber & Mueller, 2011). Other studies used a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement as a prerequisite (e.g., Baum, 1988). Due to the different types of operationalization, there is a lack of consistency, which would be necessary to be able to compare the results well with each other.
In addition, most of the factors were identified through interviews with a small sample rather than through quantitative studies with representative samples, which limits the generalizability of the results. In addition, the different methodological approaches to measuring self-perception make it difficult to compare the studies. However, the results of most studies are consistent, suggesting a degree of generalizability. Another point of criticism is the use of the Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale in five studies (Baum & Owen, 1988; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012, 2015; Olenchak, 1995; Waldron et al., 1987). This scale has been criticized for not providing standardized scores (Bear et al., 2002).
A further crucial issue is the insufficient identification of children with multiple exceptionalities, for instance, as a result of masking effects (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). As the studies analyzed only included children who had already been diagnosed as having multiple exceptionalities, this does not provide a complete picture. It is therefore pertinent to consider the self-perceptions of children who have not yet been diagnosed and have therefore not received appropriate support. Furthermore, the majority of studies are based on a cross-sectional design. This raises the question of whether other factors, such as situational influences, could also have influenced the self-perceptions, which could only be observed in longitudinal studies.
The aspect of intersectionality was also not taken into account in the available studies. It therefore remains unclear how the self-perceptions of children with multiple exceptionalities from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds are shaped. Previous research shows, for example, that Black girls are less likely to be admitted to gifted programs and are seen as less competent by teachers (Anderson, 2020). The lack of intersectionality as an influencing variable therefore represents a significant gap in previous research.
Overall, most of the studies are not up-to-date, which is why more recent social developments cannot be reflected in the results.

4.2.2. Review Process

Some limitations can also be mentioned with regard to the review process. On the one hand, only English articles were included, which is why the full breadth of research in this field cannot be represented. In addition, the screening of the full texts was only undertaken by one person; so, absolute objectivity cannot be guaranteed. However, the PRISMA guidelines were followed, which contributes to the quality of the screening process.

4.3. Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Research

Implications for practice, policy and future research are given below. Due to the qualitative shortcomings of the included studies, the results should first be verified in future research and the implications should be confirmed on this basis.

4.3.1. Implications for Practice

As masking effects lead to twice-exceptional children often not being recognized (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011), teachers and school staff should receive more training in diagnostics in order to recognize both giftedness and learning difficulties/disabilities at an early stage. The findings also highlight the importance of a holistic approach to supporting children with multiple exceptionalities. Theoretically, they point out that self-perception is a multidimensional construct that is strongly influenced by social contexts. In practice, they emphasize the need to consider both the talents and the challenges of children in school and at home in a balanced way. The heterogeneity of the results makes it clear that individualized support that takes into account both the strengths and the special needs of these children is essential. Every measure should be tailored to the individual self-perceptions and circumstances of the children. Approaches to possible implementation have already been discussed in various papers (e.g., Aqilah et al., 2019; Baldwin et al., 2019; Foley-Nicpon & Candler, 2017).
A potential-oriented perspective of the teachers towards the children is also supported by the study results, as a deficit-oriented perspective weakens their self-perceptions (e.g., Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019b), while a strength-based approach is related to positive self-perceptions (Fugate & Gentry, 2016). Expanding education and training, as well as emphasizing and focusing on the strengths of these children, can help to provide a potential-oriented view.

4.3.2. Implications for Policy

The insufficient diagnosis of twice-exceptional children (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011) indicates a necessity for the establishment of diagnostic criteria for twice exceptionality at the policy level. These standards could be integrated into education and health systems to improve the identification and support of twice-exceptional children. The review by Cheek et al. (2023), presents the current state of research on diagnostic criteria for children with multiple exceptionalities, noting the necessity for defined diagnostic criteria.
In addition, policy measures should provide schools with enough resources to train teachers, carry out diagnoses and provide personalized support plans for twice-exceptional children. The availability of counsellors and psychologists who are familiar with the special needs of 2E children should also be increased. The Global Education Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2020) states that, in many places, there are currently insufficient financial resources to adequately address heterogeneity in schools. This is despite the right for individualized support, which is anchored in the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (United Nations, 2006).

4.3.3. Implications for Future Research

Further research could build upon the findings of this review by testing the qualitative results quantitatively and longitudinally with a large sample size. This will allow the results of this review to be compared with an empirical field study. This presents a significant challenge, as children with multiple exceptionalities are frequently not identified as such, making it challenging to obtain a sufficiently large sample size. It is therefore imperative that diagnostic criteria for twice-exceptional children are investigated and further developed in order to facilitate identification. Furthermore, research should consider diversity and intersectionality in order to identify additional influencing factors.
The topic of twice exceptionality is also becoming increasingly important in schools. It would therefore be beneficial to conduct a study to ascertain whether the situation for twice-exceptional children has already improved, for example, by giving the topic more attention and providing teachers with better training in this area.
With regard to teachers, it would be beneficial to record their implicit attitudes towards twice-exceptional children in order to ascertain whether the deficit-oriented approach to these children is a consequence of negative attitudes and prejudices. Following this, interventions can be developed and evaluated with the aim of changing teachers’ attitudes and promoting a potential-oriented approach.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review analyzed the existing literature on the self-perceptions of twice-exceptional children. The results indicate that twice-exceptional children are at a higher risk of developing a negative self-concept, low self-esteem and low self-efficacy. Negative factors influencing self-perception include a lack of understanding from teachers and parents, insufficient attention to giftedness in and outside of school, and a feeling of being different. Frequently mentioned positive influencing factors, on the other hand, are support from teachers and parents, early identification of talents and challenges, and appropriate demands for giftedness, such as a strength-based support approach.
These results imply the relevance of expanded teacher training on twice exceptionality, including diagnostics, as well as appropriate support and encouragement in the form of a strength-based approach. The strengths and challenges of the children should be supported in equal measure, but the focus should be on strengths and talents, thus supporting a healthy self-perception. Strengths can also be used to overcome difficulties. Overall, there is a need for further research in order to verify and deepen the findings from this study and to use them in practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.K. and C.F.; methodology, L.K.; validation, L.K. and C.F.; formal analysis, L.K.; investigation, L.K.; resources, L.K.; data curation, L.K.; writing—original draft preparation, L.K.; writing—review and editing, L.K. and C.F.; visualization, L.K.; supervision, C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

Ann Kathrin Kolter helped with the selection procedure. Many thanks for her support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Acosta, S., Garza, T., & Hsu, H.-Y. (2020). Assessing quality in systematic reviews: A study of novice rater training supplemental material Appendix A methodological quality questionnaire (MQQ) rating scale. SAGE Open. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Al-Hroub, A. (2008). Charting self-concept, beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics among mathematically gifted pupils with learning difficulties. Gifted and Talanted International, 23(2), 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Socioemotional and academic adjustment among children with learning disorders: The mediational role of attachment-based factors. The Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Anderson, B. N. (2020). “See Me, See Us”: Understanding the intersections and continued marginalization of adolescent gifted black girls in U.S. classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 43(2), 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aqilah, H., Rosadah, A., & Majid, A. (2019). Learning strategies for twice-exceptional students. International Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 954–976. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baldwin, L., Omdal, S. N., & Pereles, D. (2019). Beyond stereotypes: Understanding, recognizing, and working with twice-exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barber, C., & Mueller, C. T. (2011). Social and self-perceptions of adolescents identified as gifted, learning disabled, and twice-exceptional. Roeper Review, 33(2), 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Baum, S. (1988). An enrichment program for gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(1), 226–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baum, S., & Owen, S. V. (1988). High ability/learning disabled students: How are they different? Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., & Manning, M. A. (2002). Self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta analysis. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 405–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bell, L., Long, S., Garvan, C., & Bussing, R. (2011). The impact of teacher credentials on ADHD Stigma Perceptions. Psychology in the Schools, 48(2), 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Best, L. J. (2017). Self-esteem and locus of control: A longitudinal analysis of twice-ecveptional learners. The Florida State University. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Casino-García, A. M., Llopis-Bueno, M. J., & Llinares-Insa, L. I. (2021). Emotional intelligence profiles and self-esteem/self-concept: An analysis of relationships in gifted students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheek, C. L., Garcia, J. L., Mehta, P. D., Francis, D. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2023). The exceptionality of twice-exceptionality: Examining combined prevalence of giftedness and disability using multivariate statistical simulation. Exceptional Children, 90(1), 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 358–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cooper, E. E., Ness, M., & Smith, M. (2004). A case study of a child with dyslexia and spatial-temporal gifts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(2), 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Falk, K., & Sansour, T. (2024). Self-concept and achievement in individuals with intellectual disabilities. Disabilities, 4(2), 348–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Foley-Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Fosenburg, S. (2015). The relationship between self-concept, ability, and academic programming among twice-exceptional youth. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(4), 256–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Foley-Nicpon, M., & Candler, M. M. (2017). Psychological interventions for twice-exceptional youth. In APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 545–558). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Foley-Nicpon, M., Rickels, H., Assouline, S. G., & Richards, A. (2012). Self-esteem and self-concept examination among gifted students With ADHD. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 220–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fugate, C. M., & Gentry, M. (2016). Understanding adolescent gifted girls with ADHD: Motivated and achieving. High Ability Studies, 27(1), 83–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ginevra, M. C., Di Maggio, I., Valbusa, I., Santilli, S., & Nota, L. (2022). Teachers’ attitudes towards students with disabilities: The role of the type of information provided in the students’ profiles of children with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(3), 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Glover, L. A. (2022). A phenomenological study: The self-efficacy of twice-exceptional students [Ph.D. thesis, School of Education]. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoogeveen, L., Van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Self-concept and social status of accelerated and nonaccelerated students in the first 2 years of secondary school in the Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(1), 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hua, C. B. (2002). Career self-efficacy of the student who is gifted/learning disabled: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(4), 375–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Huitt, W. (2009). Self-concept and self-esteem. Educational Psychology Interactive. [Google Scholar]
  34. Humphrey, N. (2002). Teacher and pupil ratings of self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jarwan, F. (2001). Personal and family factors discriminating between high and low achievers on the TIMSS-R. The National Center for Human Resources Development (NCHRD). [Google Scholar]
  36. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1966). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Krischler, M., & Pit-ten Cate, I. M. (2019). Pre- and in-service teachers’ attitudes toward students with learning difficulties and challenging behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lewis, L. R. (2021). Twice-exceptionality: Maximizing academic & psychosocial success in youth. Journal of Health Service Psychology, 47(4), 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), W-65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Litster, K., & Roberts, J. (2011). The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2), 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mann, M., Hosman, C. M. H., Schaalma, H. P., & De Vries, N. K. (2004). Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Education Research, 19(4), 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mendaglio, S. (2013). Gifted students’ transition to university. Gifted Education International, 29(1), 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Metzger, A. N., & Hamilton, L. T. (2021). The stigma of ADHD: Teacher ratings of labeled students. Sociological Perspectives, 64(2), 258–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Missett, T. C., Azano, A. P., Callahan, C. M., & Landrum, K. (2016). The influence of teacher expectations about twice-exceptional students on the use of high quality gifted curriculum: A case study approach. Exceptionality, 24(1), 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Olenchak, R. F. (1995). Effects of enrichment on gifted/ learning-disabled students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(4), 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Owen, S. V., & Baum, S. M. (1985). Development of an academic self-efficacy scale for upper elementary school children [unpublished manuscript]. University of Connecticut. [Google Scholar]
  47. Peperkorn, C., & Wegner, C. (2020). The big-five-personality and academic self-concept in gifted and non-gifted students: A systematic review of literature. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 6(4), 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Creative Learning Center. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ronksley-Pavia, M., Grootenboer, P., & Pendergast, D. (2019a). Bullying and the unique experiences of twice exceptional learners: Student perspective narratives. Gifted Child Today, 42(1), 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ronksley-Pavia, M., Grootenboer, P., & Pendergast, D. (2019b). Privileging the voices of twice-exceptional children: An exploration of lived experiences and stigma narratives*. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(1), 4–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shany, M., Wiener, J., & Assido, M. (2013). Friendship predictors of global self-worth and domain-specific self-concepts in university students with and without learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(5), 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Swann, W. B., Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarty, K. L. (2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62(2), 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Townend, G., & Brown, R. (2016). Exploring a sociocultural approach to understanding academic self-concept in twice-exceptional students. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Townend, G., & Pendergast, D. (2015). Student voice: What can we learn from twice-exceptional students about the teacher’s role in enhancing or inhibiting academic self-concept. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(1), 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. United Nations. [Google Scholar]
  60. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., Swanson, J. D., Quek, C., & Chandler, K. (2009). Academic and affective profiles of low-income, minority, and twice-exceptional gifted learners: The role of gifted program membership in enhancing self. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(4), 702–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vespi, L., & Yewchuk, C. (1992). A phenomenological study of the social/emotional characteristics of gifted learning disabled children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(1), 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Waldron, K. A., Saphire, D. G., & Rosenblum, S. A. (1987). Learning disabilities and giftedness: Identification based on self-concept, behavior, and academic patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(7), 422–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wang, C. W., & Neihart, M. (2015a). Academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy: Self-beliefs enable academic achievement of twice-exceptional students. Roeper Review, 37(2), 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, C. W., & Neihart, M. (2015b). How do supports from parents, teachers, and peers influence academic achievement of twice-exceptional students. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wu, H., Guo, Y., Yang, Y., Zhao, L., & Guo, C. (2021). A meta-analysis of the longitudinal relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1749–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 00044 g001
Figure 1. Paper identification and search screening process.
Figure 1. Paper identification and search screening process.
Education 15 00044 g001
Table 1. Exclusion and inclusion criteria.
Table 1. Exclusion and inclusion criteria.
InclusionExclusion
  • Published in the English language in a peer-reviewed journal
  • The article investigates self-esteem, self-efficacy or self-concept in twice-exceptional children
  • Extracted data align with at least one of the research questions
  • Study is empirical
  • No (twice-exceptional) children
  • Study is not empirical
  • Not published in a peer-reviewed journal
  • Not in English
Table 2. Quality assessment overview.
Table 2. Quality assessment overview.
Quality RatingQualitative PaperQuantitative Paper
Low 0–9(Baum, 1988; Cooper et al., 2004; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009)
Medium 10–18(Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012; Fugate & Gentry, 2016; Olenchak, 1995; Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992)(Baum & Owen, 1988; Hua, 2002)
High 19–27(Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019b; Townend & Brown, 2016; Townend & Pendergast, 2015; Wang & Neihart, 2015a, 2015b)(Al-Hroub, 2008; Barber & Mueller, 2011; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2015; Waldron et al., 1987)
Table 3. Results.
Table 3. Results.
LocationNGender (M:F)Age (Years)Operationalization GiftednessOperationalization Learning DifficultiesMethodology 1MeasureConcepts 2
(Al-Hroub, 2008)Jordan3014:1610–11Multi-dimensional evaluation process NR 3MMs MaSAS 4 interviewsSC (-)
(Barber & Mueller, 2011)United States360263:97M = 15,23Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (AHPVT) ≥ 120Parents reported learning disabilityQuanNRSC (-)
(Baum & Owen, 1988)Connecticut112NRNRIQ ≥ 120 (WISC-R) Performance/Verbal Scales, were classified as gifted by their local school districtSelected from the existing learning-disabled population in the local districtsQuanSE for academic tasks (Owen & Baum, 1985)Ac SE (-)
(Baum, 1988)Connecticut75:2NRPerformance or verbal scale ≥ 120Performed below grade level, discrepancy between ability and achievementQualInterviewsSEst
(Cooper et al., 2004)New England11:0NRWISC-III overall score of 124Diagnosed with dyslexiaQual, CSNRSEst, SE
(Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012)Iowa1122e: 75:37, gifted: 74:386–18IQ ≥ 120 (WISC-IV)Diagnosed with ADHDQuanBASC-2, PH-2SEst (-), SC (-)
(Foley-Nicpon et al., 2015)Iowa64ASD: 52:12; SLD: 41:235–17 IQ ≥ 120 (WISC-IV)Criteria for an ASD or SLD consistent with the DSM-IV-TRQuanPH-2SC (/)
(Fugate & Gentry, 2016)United States50:5M = 12.6Ability score ≥ 120; overall ≥ 90th percentile on normed tests of achievement or ability; or ≥70th percentile on any one sub-testDiagnosed with ADHDQual, CSInterviewSEst, SE
(Hua, 2002)United States11:0NRIQ of 135 Perceptual–communicative disorder due to sensory–motor integration problemsQual, CSInterviewSE
(Olenchak, 1995)United States10882:26NRIQ ≥ 120Need service for learning disabilitiesQuanPH-2SC
(Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019b)Australia85:39–16Giftedness through WISC-IV or WPPSI-R oder WISC-III (one ≥ 120)Disability diagnosis Qual, CSInterviewSEst, SE
(Townend & Brown, 2016)Australia11:016>90th percentile in one or more IQ subscalesAuditory processing disorder diagnosisMMs, CSBASC-2, PH-2, InterviewSEst (-), Ac SC (-)
(Townend & Pendergast, 2015)Australia33:0NRWISC-IV or Stanford Binet Fifth Edition, subscale ≥ 120Auditory processing disorder diagnosisMMs, CSBASC-2, PH-2, interviewSC (-)
(VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009)Singapore14NRNRStandardized ability, achievement, and value-added performance task measuresThrough performance taskQualInterviewSEst (-)
(Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992)NR33:0M = 10.25IQ ≥ 120 on one scale of the WISC-R, verbal/performance discrepancy Identified academic difficulties and receives assistanceQualInterviewSEst (+)
(Waldron et al., 1987)Texas4824:248–12IQ ≥ 120, or met all criteria for gifted placement in that districtScored below the 70th percentile, with an uneven profile of scores QuanPH-2SC (-)
(Wang & Neihart, 2015a)Singapore66:0M = 13.83Enrollment in GEP, performance within the 75th to 100th percentileDiagnosed disabilityQualInterviewAc SE (+), Ac SC (+)
(Wang & Neihart, 2015b)Singapore66:0M = 13.83Talent development programDiagnosed disabilityQualInterviewSE
1 Mixed Methods (MMs), Quantitative (Quan), Qualitative (Qual), Case study (SC). 2 Self-concept (SC), Self-efficacy (SE), Self-esteem (SEst), Academic (Ac); positive (+), negative (-), in between/average (/). 3 Not reported (NR). 4 Jordanian version of the Mathematics and Science Attitude Scale for gifted and non-gifted children (Jarwan, 2001).
Table 4. Influencing factors.
Table 4. Influencing factors.
PositiveNegative
AuthorsEnrichment ProgramsFocus on Strengths (Teachers)Supportive TeachersSupportive ParentsEarly IdentificationGood PerformanceWorking with OthersGifted ProgramTraditional TeachingNegative Relationship (Parents)Feeling DifferentImpatience, Lack of Understanding (Teachers)Too High ExpectationsLate/No IdentificationFocus on Deficits (Teachers)Discrepancy Ability and PerformanceNegative Interactions (Teachers, Peers)Negative Self-TalkLack of Social RelationshipsBehavioral ProblemsLack of Support (Teachers)Lack of Recognition (Parents)
(Al-Hroub, 2008)x x
(Barber & Mueller, 2011) x
(Baum & Owen, 1988)
(Baum, 1988)x
(Cooper et al., 2004) x x
(Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012)
(Foley-Nicpon et al., 2015)
(Fugate & Gentry, 2016) xxx xx
(Hua, 2002) xxx xxx x
(Olenchak, 1995)xx
(Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019b) xx x x xxx
(Townend & Brown, 2016)
(Townend & Pendergast, 2015) x x x x x xx
(VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009) x x
(Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992) x
(Waldron et al., 1987) x
(Wang & Neihart, 2015a) xxx x
(Wang & Neihart, 2015b) xx x
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Küry, L.; Fischer, C. The Self-Perceptions of Twice-Exceptional Children: A Systematic Review. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010044

AMA Style

Küry L, Fischer C. The Self-Perceptions of Twice-Exceptional Children: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(1):44. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010044

Chicago/Turabian Style

Küry, Louise, and Christian Fischer. 2025. "The Self-Perceptions of Twice-Exceptional Children: A Systematic Review" Education Sciences 15, no. 1: 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010044

APA Style

Küry, L., & Fischer, C. (2025). The Self-Perceptions of Twice-Exceptional Children: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 15(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010044

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop